Title: Blue Gold, world water wars Director: Sam Bozzo Release year: 2008
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
97% of the earth’s water is salt water in the oceans and the remaining 3% is significantly polluted by human actions and is being used at a highly unsustainable rate. This film points out how truly unsustainable our water use is. It looks at a variety of issues including water privatization, dislocation of water resources, ecological impacts of depleting groundwater tables and conflicts over water allocation. The film seeks to inform the viewer that although you may take your water for granted in your home the issue of water conservation needs to be dealt with on a global scale.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The primary sustainability problem presented in this film is simply that we are using fresh groundwater sources faster than they can be naturally replenished. If we continue this we will inevitably run out of an easily accessible water supply. “Dasani and Polar Springs can’t be our alternative to proper sanitation and water treatment for the public.” The United States pumps 30 billion gallons of ground water from the earth every day. Recharge or return flow will refill this ground water table but pumping occurs on average 50 times faster than what can be replaced through this return flow. Los Angeles has only 3,000,000 gallons in personal supply of water but they currently use 32,000,000 gallons retrieving excess supply from locations up to 1400 miles away. This overuse is compounded by increased urban populations and development of our built environment. Pavement prevents soil from getting water while population increases increase the demand on water sources. Also the runoff from many of our cities and roads is often polluted by the time it reaches the soil or ground water table. We should seek to define how much water there is and live within a sustainable supply.
Improper organization of our water sources can cause a number of ecological problems other than simple water depletion. Desertification can occur through a loss of water content within the ground which compounded with deforestation can lead to large areas of grassland or desert that was once a forest. This can lead to further soil erosion as the trees absorb and hold water and prevent floods and excess runoff from occurring. Also 60% of our wetlands on earth have been destroyed over the past hundred years. These areas are natural water cleansing areas before water enters rivers and streams. We are removing these forms of natural filtration and adding pollution to many of our water sources and this waste water in the rivers will inevitably return to us in our food.
This problem becomes even more complicated when water is controlled by corporations who are out to make a profit. Companies like Suez, Aleolia and WB Thames control water supplies in countries around the world including the United States. Once this water privatization occurs it can become a very powerful industry. When water changes from a public resource to a traded commodity it can be removed and shipped elsewhere where it will never return to the original source. Civil wars have been brought about because of dissent among population about water policies and restrictions put into place by corporations.
People aren’t actively trying to conserve water but when their source is threatened they will do anything to ensure they maintain their supply. At the Kaveri River in India there was an actual water war and disputes have occurred throughout history as an area diverted water away from other areas and to themselves. The film believes that military force will be used in the future to ensure water resources. One area they looked to was one of the world’s largest aquifers in Brazil. There is some evidence that the Bush family is attempting to purchase thousands of acres of land in Paraguay over this aquifer. These types of actions have the potential to spark international disputes as individuals attempt to lay claim to the remaining fresh water sources.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
One statement in the movie was very persuasive in terms of the argument that we are very inefficient with our water allocation: water is moved from northern to southern California to grow alfalfa which goes to Japan to be fed to Kobe beef cattle whose meat comes back to U.S. Although this was a presumption it shows how far our water can be transported to create a product in our modern consumer society.
I also found the idea that water is needed for human survival but yet it is not guaranteed to you in many areas of the world to be quite compelling. This seems largely the result of water privatization. In South Africa people can’t afford the water even directly from where it is being pumped within their community so they are forced back to disease and infection ridden streams and rivers. In these types of areas profit shouldn’t be made from water. In one area a woman told a story of how a shack (someone’s home) caught fire and people couldn’t afford to use their water to put it out so two girls died inside. She noted how to be deficient in these simple resources takes away your humaneness. This was very persuasive in showing how unappreciative most developed countries are of their clean water supply.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
Overall I found this film to be very well done and convincing. One area of the film that was somewhat contradictive was that it shows privatization of the water supply as a problem and points out how government also can be a problem. It gave an example of how Vicente Fox (the president of Mexico) gave large water concessions to Coke-a-Cola who he used to work for. If both corporations and government can’t be trusted with controlling water supplies than where is our point of intervention in fixing the system?
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
The film mentioned briefly the water intensiveness of a number of common consumer products. Many of these numbers were astounding. I would be interested in knowing more of these statistics so I could see just how much water I use within a day other than what I let out of the tap itself. Also it was discussed in class where does our water come from? I would be interested in knowing not only where my water supply comes from but also who owns or regulates my water and what is the status on the sustainability of the source or when might I expect it to begin to become depleted?
I was also compelled to seek out more information of the corporations that were mentioned. They were portrayed as bad but many of the examples were associated with privatization problems in general and dislocation of local workers. I would be interested in knowing if these companies actually bring about some good to the areas in which they control. Is there any indication that they are controlling water supplies poorly or distributing it discriminatorily?
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The idea of this film was that everyone needs water to survive. Therefore these issues have the power to affect everyone and anyone who may watch this documentary. A particularly suitable audience would be those of suburban America who take water largely for granted and continually mow their lawns and wash their cars etc… These people have the largest potential to lower their demand on the water supply. In the end although many other problems exist if the demand for water is lowered to within a sustainable limit than the corporations will not have a need to pump it faster.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film proposed a number of kinds of action but invoked the overall theme that there is a need for greater water conservation and controlling growth in correlation with water resources in order to live within the limits of the water supply. It proposed going back to local food systems and local water. Also to counteract desertification they encouraged establishment of water catchments to capture runoff. This essentially consists simply of digging holes which force water into the ground. They also highlight a number of technological solutions and consumer products to a number of these problems including: micro turbines instead of large dams, permeable roadway surfaces, low flow faucets and two button toilets. The film also encouraged active water conservation within the household, “if your local climate doesn’t create a green lawn then don’t have a lawn.” Many corporate entities look to desalination as a solution to this crisis but the film was against this solution as they pointed out it would compound energy and global warming problems and allow for further corporate control over the water supply. A more radical point of intervention suggested by the film is congressional action in the form of an amendment making water a right to everyone.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
Overall this film did a substantial job on informing the viewers of the problems and facts associated with the water industry. I believe it is very likely to enroll viewers and convince them that water is something they should attempt to conserve. The film spent significant portions of the film showing how water privatization is a serious problem. If the film included solutions to this problem either in the form of how government would control the water supply more effectively or how corporations could more sustainably control the system then this would have strengthened their argument against the current system. Although the film did provide solutions in terms of what a consumer can do a larger picture of what a sustainable water supply system would look like would have increased the environmental education value of the film.
Director: Sam Bozzo
Release year: 2008
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
97% of the earth’s water is salt water in the oceans and the remaining 3% is significantly polluted by human actions and is being used at a highly unsustainable rate. This film points out how truly unsustainable our water use is. It looks at a variety of issues including water privatization, dislocation of water resources, ecological impacts of depleting groundwater tables and conflicts over water allocation. The film seeks to inform the viewer that although you may take your water for granted in your home the issue of water conservation needs to be dealt with on a global scale.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The primary sustainability problem presented in this film is simply that we are using fresh groundwater sources faster than they can be naturally replenished. If we continue this we will inevitably run out of an easily accessible water supply. “Dasani and Polar Springs can’t be our alternative to proper sanitation and water treatment for the public.” The United States pumps 30 billion gallons of ground water from the earth every day. Recharge or return flow will refill this ground water table but pumping occurs on average 50 times faster than what can be replaced through this return flow. Los Angeles has only 3,000,000 gallons in personal supply of water but they currently use 32,000,000 gallons retrieving excess supply from locations up to 1400 miles away. This overuse is compounded by increased urban populations and development of our built environment. Pavement prevents soil from getting water while population increases increase the demand on water sources. Also the runoff from many of our cities and roads is often polluted by the time it reaches the soil or ground water table. We should seek to define how much water there is and live within a sustainable supply.
Improper organization of our water sources can cause a number of ecological problems other than simple water depletion. Desertification can occur through a loss of water content within the ground which compounded with deforestation can lead to large areas of grassland or desert that was once a forest. This can lead to further soil erosion as the trees absorb and hold water and prevent floods and excess runoff from occurring. Also 60% of our wetlands on earth have been destroyed over the past hundred years. These areas are natural water cleansing areas before water enters rivers and streams. We are removing these forms of natural filtration and adding pollution to many of our water sources and this waste water in the rivers will inevitably return to us in our food.
This problem becomes even more complicated when water is controlled by corporations who are out to make a profit. Companies like Suez, Aleolia and WB Thames control water supplies in countries around the world including the United States. Once this water privatization occurs it can become a very powerful industry. When water changes from a public resource to a traded commodity it can be removed and shipped elsewhere where it will never return to the original source. Civil wars have been brought about because of dissent among population about water policies and restrictions put into place by corporations.
People aren’t actively trying to conserve water but when their source is threatened they will do anything to ensure they maintain their supply. At the Kaveri River in India there was an actual water war and disputes have occurred throughout history as an area diverted water away from other areas and to themselves. The film believes that military force will be used in the future to ensure water resources. One area they looked to was one of the world’s largest aquifers in Brazil. There is some evidence that the Bush family is attempting to purchase thousands of acres of land in Paraguay over this aquifer. These types of actions have the potential to spark international disputes as individuals attempt to lay claim to the remaining fresh water sources.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
One statement in the movie was very persuasive in terms of the argument that we are very inefficient with our water allocation: water is moved from northern to southern California to grow alfalfa which goes to Japan to be fed to Kobe beef cattle whose meat comes back to U.S. Although this was a presumption it shows how far our water can be transported to create a product in our modern consumer society.
I also found the idea that water is needed for human survival but yet it is not guaranteed to you in many areas of the world to be quite compelling. This seems largely the result of water privatization. In South Africa people can’t afford the water even directly from where it is being pumped within their community so they are forced back to disease and infection ridden streams and rivers. In these types of areas profit shouldn’t be made from water. In one area a woman told a story of how a shack (someone’s home) caught fire and people couldn’t afford to use their water to put it out so two girls died inside. She noted how to be deficient in these simple resources takes away your humaneness. This was very persuasive in showing how unappreciative most developed countries are of their clean water supply.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
Overall I found this film to be very well done and convincing. One area of the film that was somewhat contradictive was that it shows privatization of the water supply as a problem and points out how government also can be a problem. It gave an example of how Vicente Fox (the president of Mexico) gave large water concessions to Coke-a-Cola who he used to work for. If both corporations and government can’t be trusted with controlling water supplies than where is our point of intervention in fixing the system?
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
The film mentioned briefly the water intensiveness of a number of common consumer products. Many of these numbers were astounding. I would be interested in knowing more of these statistics so I could see just how much water I use within a day other than what I let out of the tap itself. Also it was discussed in class where does our water come from? I would be interested in knowing not only where my water supply comes from but also who owns or regulates my water and what is the status on the sustainability of the source or when might I expect it to begin to become depleted?
I was also compelled to seek out more information of the corporations that were mentioned. They were portrayed as bad but many of the examples were associated with privatization problems in general and dislocation of local workers. I would be interested in knowing if these companies actually bring about some good to the areas in which they control. Is there any indication that they are controlling water supplies poorly or distributing it discriminatorily?
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The idea of this film was that everyone needs water to survive. Therefore these issues have the power to affect everyone and anyone who may watch this documentary. A particularly suitable audience would be those of suburban America who take water largely for granted and continually mow their lawns and wash their cars etc… These people have the largest potential to lower their demand on the water supply. In the end although many other problems exist if the demand for water is lowered to within a sustainable limit than the corporations will not have a need to pump it faster.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film proposed a number of kinds of action but invoked the overall theme that there is a need for greater water conservation and controlling growth in correlation with water resources in order to live within the limits of the water supply. It proposed going back to local food systems and local water. Also to counteract desertification they encouraged establishment of water catchments to capture runoff. This essentially consists simply of digging holes which force water into the ground. They also highlight a number of technological solutions and consumer products to a number of these problems including: micro turbines instead of large dams, permeable roadway surfaces, low flow faucets and two button toilets. The film also encouraged active water conservation within the household, “if your local climate doesn’t create a green lawn then don’t have a lawn.” Many corporate entities look to desalination as a solution to this crisis but the film was against this solution as they pointed out it would compound energy and global warming problems and allow for further corporate control over the water supply. A more radical point of intervention suggested by the film is congressional action in the form of an amendment making water a right to everyone.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
Overall this film did a substantial job on informing the viewers of the problems and facts associated with the water industry. I believe it is very likely to enroll viewers and convince them that water is something they should attempt to conserve. The film spent significant portions of the film showing how water privatization is a serious problem. If the film included solutions to this problem either in the form of how government would control the water supply more effectively or how corporations could more sustainably control the system then this would have strengthened their argument against the current system. Although the film did provide solutions in terms of what a consumer can do a larger picture of what a sustainable water supply system would look like would have increased the environmental education value of the film.